Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond that: it calls out the dependency on xref_index.json.gz, explains how that index is generated, and discloses the vector-search fallback behavior when the index is unavailable.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose and output categories, the second gives the prerequisite, and the third describes fallback behavior. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant or filler content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema, the description still gives enough shape of what to expect by listing the major output categories and mentioning the fallback mechanism. It covers prerequisites and operational behavior, though it does not describe the exact return format or how depth/maxResults affect results beyond what the schema provides. This is a minor gap for a complex cross-reference tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters clearly. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides; it reinforces the category list but does not explain defaults, formats, or constraints beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a clear verb and resource: it produces a full cross-reference profile for a class or method, enumerating callers, callees, inheritance, interfaces, overrides, and attributes. It distinguishes itself from the narrower tool name 'find_callers' by explaining the broader scope, though it does not explicitly name a sibling tool for comparison.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for cross-reference exploration and provides important context: it requires xref_index.json.gz and falls back to vector-search when the index is not loaded. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over similar siblings like find_references, find_change_impact, or find_related_objects, so the routing guidance is implied rather than explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.